• Re: Einstein Hid His Third Postulate

    From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 11:31:39 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.

    That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
    Can you?


    ... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.

    No, not 'due to the LT.'.
    Its due to the fact that they do; its the way our universe operates.
    The LT's simply model this behavior. The LT's don't dictate. You are so confused.

    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.
    You are a reality denier now?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Sep 29 11:21:29 2023
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to rotchm on Fri Sep 29 12:46:59 2023
    On Friday, 29 September 2023 at 20:31:41 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
    Can you?


    ... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.

    No, not 'due to the LT.'.
    Its due to the fact that they do

    But they don't. Anyone can check GPS.

    Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.

    And that communism must win.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to rotchm on Fri Sep 29 12:54:16 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
    Can you?


    ... they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.

    No, not 'due to the LT.'.
    Its due to the fact that they do; its the way our universe operates.
    The LT's simply model this behavior. The LT's don't dictate. You are so confused.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    Nope. Actual exps show that you are wrong.
    You are a reality denier now?
    Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 12:52:38 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    "In order for the theory to survive long enough for this to happen, its dependencies
    and design weaknesses as a physical theory could perhaps not be made too explicit: It would have
    been counterproductive to Einstein’s project to tell his opponents exactly where special
    relativity’s approach was weakest, until he had had a chance to fix the problems himself. Until
    Einstein had produced his general theory, it was probably easier to keep the real basis of special relativity ambiguous." "Einstein's Missing Third Postulate" -Baird

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 13:13:09 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    "A theory supplied without conventional physical postulates can be
    legitimate, but a theory presented as being constructed from only the main postulates provided,
    but requiring additional major unstated assumptions to reach its goal, is perhaps a case of false
    advertising." - Baird = "Einstein's Missing Third Postulate"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 15:06:15 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    <snip>

    Much simpler than that.

    Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
    While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
    located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.

    That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.

    Cretinism = relativism

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Sep 29 15:25:39 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:06:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    <snip>

    Much simpler than that.

    Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
    While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
    located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.

    That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.

    Cretinism = relativism
    The twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 16:23:27 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:25:41 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:06:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    <snip>

    Much simpler than that.

    Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
    While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
    located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.

    That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.

    Cretinism = relativism
    The twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?

    What I wrote is elementary logic BEFORE Lorentz transforms are "derived". Pure logic, because when a rod of length L = BA
    pass by the origin x = 0, clock located at B (rod moving to the right side) is reset by a light signal.

    IF the same procedure is applied to the clock located at the A rear end, then automatically B clock is out of sync.

    1) End B passes by origin x = 0. Clock tB = clock t = 0.
    2) End A passes by the origin x = 0. Clock tA = clock t = 0, BUT clock tB is running L/v seconds ahead of tA = t = 0.
    This problem has no solution, unless A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM sets clock A = L/v, which is EXACTLY the time t. So NO RESET!

    Lorentz transforms:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Now, reading the paper you mentioned, it's obvious what happens. He replaced

    x = x'/γ + vt in t', what gives time in the moving frame related to position in the moving frame:

    t' = γ (t - x'v/(γc²) - vt v/c²) = γ (t - t v²/c² - x'v/(γc²) ) = γ (t/γ² - x'v/(γc²) = (t/γ) - x'v/c²

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    If, once using Lorentz, Einstein tries to sync t' when t = 0, HE CAN'T because for t = 0, t' = - x′v/c²

    Being t' = - x′v/c² WHEN t = 0 only has ONE SOLUTION: Using only ONE CLOCK at x' = 0. Then he could synchronize ONE moving
    clock located at the rear end of the rod BA (or just the clock A).

    That's ONE OF MANY deceiving manipulations of the 1905 paper. It's WRONGFUL, it's called CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING, etc.

    But cretinism = relativism has prevailed on this evil, rotten world.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 16:58:35 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:54:18 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

    Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.

    You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
    nor did you quote him on it.
    Google kept a record of your lies.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From JanPB@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Fri Sep 29 20:09:08 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:23:29 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 7:25:41 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:06:18 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    <snip>

    Much simpler than that.

    Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
    While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
    located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.

    That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.

    Cretinism = relativism
    The twins clocks are out of sync with each other. You have read Englehardt's article. Can you explain the math? How would the multiple clocks in one IRF go out of sync with each other?
    What I wrote is elementary logic BEFORE Lorentz transforms are "derived". Pure logic, because when a rod of length L = BA
    pass by the origin x = 0, clock located at B (rod moving to the right side) is reset by a light signal.

    IF the same procedure is applied to the clock located at the A rear end, then automatically B clock is out of sync.

    1) End B passes by origin x = 0. Clock tB = clock t = 0.
    2) End A passes by the origin x = 0. Clock tA = clock t = 0, BUT clock tB is running L/v seconds ahead of tA = t = 0.
    This problem has no solution, unless A COMPUTERIZED SYSTEM sets clock A = L/v, which is EXACTLY the time t. So NO RESET!

    Lorentz transforms:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Now, reading the paper you mentioned, it's obvious what happens. He replaced

    x = x'/γ + vt in t', what gives time in the moving frame related to position in the moving frame:

    t' = γ (t - x'v/(γc²) - vt v/c²) = γ (t - t v²/c² - x'v/(γc²) ) = γ (t/γ² - x'v/(γc²) = (t/γ) - x'v/c²

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    If, once using Lorentz, Einstein tries to sync t' when t = 0, HE CAN'T because for t = 0, t' = - x′v/c²

    Being t' = - x′v/c² WHEN t = 0 only has ONE SOLUTION: Using only ONE CLOCK at x' = 0. Then he could synchronize ONE moving
    clock located at the rear end of the rod BA (or just the clock A).

    That's ONE OF MANY deceiving manipulations of the 1905 paper. It's WRONGFUL, it's called CHEATING, COOKING, FUDGING, etc.

    But cretinism = relativism has prevailed on this evil, rotten world.

    You guys are completely incompetent. You are never going to
    get anywhere with your silly useless rants.

    --
    Jan

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Fri Sep 29 21:09:17 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to rotchm on Fri Sep 29 20:37:54 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:54:18 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:31:41 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

    Hey mule, you didn't read the reference and complain I didn't provide one.
    You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
    nor did you quote him on it.
    Google kept a record of your lies.
    See above first posted comment:
    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 14:45:58 2023
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
    relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
    continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 30 10:00:19 2023
    Den 30.09.2023 00:06, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 3:21:32 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    <snip>

    Much simpler than that.

    Having a rod of length L with one clock at each end, they would be automatically out of sync as both pass by the origin.
    While the clock located at the B end of the rod is being reset by light signals, while passing by the origin at rest, the clock
    located in the rear end A would have been forced to reset after L/v seconds. This put both clocks out of sync.

    That's why, when deriving his Lorentz transforms, the cretin only used ONE POINT (x' = 0), which would be the rear end A.

    Cretinism = relativism


    :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 30 09:56:39 2023
    Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.


    Nonsense.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 05:15:20 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

    You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
    nor did you quote him on it.
    Google kept a record of your lies.
    See above first posted comment:
    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.
    Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
    Do you know what to quote someone means?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 11:46:50 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    A frame has its own time. There can be other frame clocks around it to compare.


    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 12:05:29 2023
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers


    paralell universes are ...Postulates.


    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Starmaker@21:1/5 to rotchm on Sat Sep 30 12:25:30 2023
    rotchm wrote:

    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.

    That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
    Can you?

    if i'm running
    trying to catch
    the next train..
    and I look
    at my clock/watch

    "Time is what a clock reads".

    How can I tell if I'm late if I have more than one clock????

    Your body is your frame of reference.

    You can only have one clock.


    It doesn't work with two clocks or more clocks.


    You are Spam rotchm because your post message is irrelvant.


    You're irrelvant! I incite others to report your spam.







    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 30 13:02:38 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Nonsense.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    Then you know better than Einstein or did he make a dumb remark forbidding multiple cocks?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Sylvia Else on Sat Sep 30 13:01:17 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame? We could just use one clock in each frame. Was he mistaken or did he have a good reason?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 12:58:52 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to rotchm on Sat Sep 30 13:05:44 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:15:22 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

    You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
    nor did you quote him on it.
    Google kept a record of your lies.
    See above first posted comment:
    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt
    So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.
    Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
    Do you know what to quote someone means?
    I already told you he quotes Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 30 13:09:17 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Nonsense.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    Then you know better than Einstein or did he make a dumb remark forbidding multiple clocks?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to mitchr...@gmail.com on Sat Sep 30 13:06:54 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:46:52 AM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    A frame has its own time. There can be other frame clocks around it to compare.
    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    You are disagreeing with Einstein. Are you more intelligent than him?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Sep 30 13:16:44 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:25:19 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    rotchm wrote:

    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 2:21:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.

    That is a lie on your part, until you can present a reference where he claimed that.
    Can you?
    if i'm running
    trying to catch
    the next train..
    and I look
    at my clock/watch

    "Time is what a clock reads".

    How can I tell if I'm late if I have more than one clock????

    Your body is your frame of reference.

    You can only have one clock.


    It doesn't work with two clocks or more clocks.


    You are Spam rotchm because your post message is irrelvant.


    You're irrelvant! I incite others to report your spam.
    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.
    Do you think Engehardt was right to be suspicious of these word of Einstein's? "
    IV. CONCLUSION
    Analyzing Einstein’s own demonstration of time dilation, we have found that his third postulate formulated in
    the context of his synchronization procedure cannot be satisfied in view of the relationship between the readings of
    moving clocks as predicted by the Lorentz transformation.
    Einstein resolved the problem by sketching only a single
    clock in the moving system. Whether this was intentional
    or not may be open to discussion, but it is noteworthy that,
    for the case where the upper system S0 is at rest and the
    lower system S moves to the left—thus maintaining the
    same relative velocity—he wrote: “Certainly the same
    result [for time dilation] could be found if the clock moved
    relative to an observer at rest in the upper c.s.; in this case
    there would have to be many clocks in the upper c.s. and
    only one in the lower.” This would not seem to be a
    “simple” prescription, but rather appears to be an ingenious
    measure in view of the fact that the two systems are indistinguishable in principle, as indeed Einstein emphasized himself." - ENGLHARDT

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to rotchm on Sat Sep 30 13:18:26 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:15:22 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

    You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
    nor did you quote him on it.
    Google kept a record of your lies.
    See above first posted comment:
    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt
    So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.
    Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
    Do you know what to quote someone means?
    I give the quote below in reply to Starmaker.
    Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311218110_Einstein's_third_postulate

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 13:29:00 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 13:23:49 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Einstein was not a genius.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 13:56:58 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 13:30:34 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?

    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 13:58:00 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 30 13:59:08 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Nonsense.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    Your paper says, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" Yet there is nothing surprising about the fact the results are self-contradictory reductio ad absurdum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 30 14:09:18 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Nonsense.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    By saying, "The answer depends on how the clocks are compared!" you admit Dingle's criticism is correct.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 14:13:02 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:58:02 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.
    The only dumbotrons here are you, Dick, Engelhard and Crotches. Crotches used to post in this forum , after the savage beatings he got here, he withdrew in the safety of the npa-relativity forum.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 14:18:13 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:13:05 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:58:02 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock. What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    That makes Einstein Dumbotron in your view.
    The only dumbotrons here are you, Dick, Engelhard and Crotches. Crotches used to post in this forum , after the savage beatings he got here, he withdrew in the safety of the npa-relativity forum.
    As usual. you are unable to give substantive reasons for your vacuous views. Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism." - Leus, relativist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 17:42:35 2023
    On 9/30/2023 4:05 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:15:22 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:37:58 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 4:58:38 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:

    You did not provide any reference of where Einstein said what you claimed he said,
    nor did you quote him on it.
    Google kept a record of your lies.
    See above first posted comment:
    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    So you can't quote Einstein, you can't prove your claim.
    Engelhardt is NOT Einstein, DuH!
    Do you know what to quote someone means?

    I already told you he quotes Einstein.

    Then you need to skip Engelhardt entirely and provide Einstein's quote
    here directly and show how Einstein's quote makes your case. For all
    anyone knows, Engelhardt is a crackpot even nuttier than you are, and he
    quotes Einstein stating "E=mc^2" or misinterprets something else which
    doesn't support your claim.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 17:46:27 2023
    On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches
    Neither of you have answered his reply.

    So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
    refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 15:04:40 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."

    I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 30 15:58:36 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches
    Neither of you have answered his reply.
    So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
    refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?


    Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassmement by his hate of Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 16:02:29 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:58:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches
    Neither of you have answered his reply.
    So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
    refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
    Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 16:40:06 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 4:18:28 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Here's a link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311218110_Einstein's_third_postulate

    Again I ask you: Quote Einstein. don't quote hearsay, don't quote Engelh...
    YOU said that Einstein said ...., so, quote EINSTIEN, referencing where he said it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 16:36:00 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 4:05:46 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    I already told you he quotes Einstein.

    Then why can't you present that quote?
    Its simple to quote someone, yet you can't do it. That says it all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 17:04:33 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:02:31 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:58:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: >>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches
    Neither of you have answered his reply.
    So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly) refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
    Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.

    So he's right and you are not, fucking relativist.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to The Starmaker on Sat Sep 30 16:45:06 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:05:16 PM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
    Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    paralell universes are ...Postulates.

    How do you know what universe you are in?



    --
    The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
    to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
    and challenge the unchallengeable.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sat Sep 30 17:52:20 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:56:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.09.2023 20:21, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Nonsense.

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    You said, "This is what is meant by mutual time dilation." This is a reductio ad absurdum disproving time dilation. You deny this saying, "Conclusion #1 does not contradict conclusion #2 because the temporal interval between different sets of events are
    compared." This is not true because the directions contradict. "Conclusion #3: The co-ordinate time of frame K runs fast as observed in frame K.'
    ... Conclusion #4: The co-ordinate time of frame K' runs fast as observed in frame K
    There is nothing contradictory between conclusion #3 and #4 either." This proves the effect is illusory, as is the small apparent size of distant objects. Your exclamation also admits that time dilation is subjective or perspectival and not real. Your
    expression of surprise is a declaration of credulity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 17:52:27 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers: "Thus, for every t > 0 of the “stationary system K” there exists a point ξ ≠ 0 in the “moving system k” where τ = 0 .
    However, according to Einstein’s clock-synchronisation method this is impossible because all clocks in his moving system k are synchronised, so that when t > 0, τ > 0 too. Thus, Einstein’s clock-synchronisation method is inconsistent with the
    Lorentz Transformation [2] [3] [4]... Systems of stationary observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation
    cannot be clock-synchronised. In §5 of [2] I mathematically constructed a set of
    clock-synchronised observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation, proving thereby that they cannot all be stationary observers. Systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers consistent with the Lorentz Transformation cannot be mathematically constructed. Einstein’s tacit assumption that
    they can be mathematically constructed is false, yet they are essential to his theory. Therefore his Theory of Relativity is false because it contains an insurmountable logical inconsistency." - Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’” -Crothers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Volney on Sat Sep 30 17:54:04 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches
    Neither of you have answered his reply.
    So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly)
    refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
    You are a lazy fool.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Sep 30 17:54:08 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."
    I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!
    No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sat Sep 30 17:54:18 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 4:02:31 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:58:38 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:46:29 PM UTC-7, Volney wrote:
    On 9/30/2023 4:29 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:29:03 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 12:58:55 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:09:20 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: >>>> On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Dumbotron

    Leus demonstrates that Crothers is a crank.
    Crothers had a reply cited above in my first comment. He refers us back to Englehardt.
    Dumbotron,

    Leus already demolished Crotches
    Neither of you have answered his reply.
    So you refer to Crothers who refers to Engelhardt who (purportedly) refers to Einstein. Are we playing the kid's game "Telephone"?
    Engelhardt is the most skilled of the cranks. He used to be a real physicist driven into insanity and embarrassment by his hate of Einstein.
    In the presently discussed matter of the number of clocks allowable in the moving frame he over-estimated Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 21:38:37 2023
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:

    I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
    and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
    (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
    rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
    anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by
    "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 30 20:14:47 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
    and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
    (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
    rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
    anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts
    I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same. Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work
    with the Lt. Einstein himself tacitly admitted this in the quote where he says the moving frame could not have more than one clock. I admit I don't yet have a grasp of their argument. I am surprised that the defenders of relativity have not already
    contended with it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 20:38:31 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt

    There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 21:12:19 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 9:14:50 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
    and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
    rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
    anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts

    I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same. Everyone agrees with that. The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchroni- zation method doesn't work with the Lt.

    Engelhardt ASSUMED the the t' from the LT was actually the time of clocks an observer in S' would see. He wouldn't. That's what the relativity of simultaneity
    is all about.

    Einstein himself tacitly admitted this in the quote where he says the moving frame could not have more than one clock.

    Einstein didn't say that. Engelhardt invented it.

    I admit I don't yet have a grasp of their argument.

    But you presume out of thin air the Engelhardt is right and Einstein is wrong.

    I am surprised that the defenders of relativity have not already contended with it.

    It's almost too simplistic to bother with. OTOH, relativity of simultaneity has
    some rather deep implications that have unseated many would be knights
    errant, including one W. Engelhardt as well as anyone who falls for his error.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sat Sep 30 21:51:30 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 11:38:51 PM UTC-3, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates (t,x,y,z),
    and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with coordinates
    (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds among clocks at
    rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among clocks at rest
    anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is what is meant by "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts

    You are wrong, as usual:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync in
    the same inertial frame:

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m


    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sat Sep 30 21:52:12 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:54:11 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."

    I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!

    No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?

    Only in your fantasy world. The "scientists" you think are excellent are mostly not physicists at all and none have shown Einstein to be wrong. Not one.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sat Sep 30 22:08:33 2023
    On Sunday, 1 October 2023 at 06:52:14 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 5:54:11 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 3:04:42 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 2:18:16 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Leus said: "There is nothing as ludicrous as an unsubstantiated criticism."

    I suggest that you heed this advice yourself because you have made plenty of unsubstantiated criticisms of Einstein!

    No, there are thousands of excellent papers and books by excellent scientists substantiating what I have said. Can you read?
    Only in your fantasy world. The "scientists" you think are excellent are mostly not physicists at all and none have shown Einstein to be wrong. Not one.

    Well, the mumble of your idiot guru was not
    even consistent, but showing to a fanatic idiot
    what he doesn't want to notice is next to impossible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 09:29:41 2023
    Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
    relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
    continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change. >>>>
    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.

    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 12:53:14 2023
    Le 01/10/2023 à 04:38, Tom Roberts a écrit :
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Einstein's time synchronization

    Einstein's synchronization

    Tom Roberts

    "On n'est pas sorti de l'auberge".

    Proverbe français.

    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adolf =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6bel?=@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 15:41:11 2023
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
    relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they
    continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change. >>> >
    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
    outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Richard Hertz on Sun Oct 1 06:48:01 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:51:32 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    Note #1: This resolves to t = γ(t' + vx'/c²).

    Note #2: You can also derive x = γ(x' + vt')

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync in the same inertial frame:

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m


    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

    Exactly, as PERCEIVED by the observer who remains at x = 0. IOW, from the perspective of S, not S'. This just proves the relativity of simultaneity from the
    perspective of S.

    Now use Note #1 to prove that clocks stationary in S are out of sync from the perspective of S'. This proves the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective
    of S'.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 08:11:28 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
    relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
    outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi
    ...and in "The Electrodynamics of the Moving Bodies", where ge explains the clock synchronization method (the one that Engelhardt keeps bungling), there are two clocks, one at the A end of the rod and one at the B end of the rod. (nothing changes if
    there is an arbitrary number of clocks between A and B). Engelhardt is an imbecile.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 08:23:57 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
    relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
    outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi
    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adolf =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6bel?=@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 17:57:46 2023
    On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
    outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi
    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.

    Maybe you should reread p. 514? Or can`t you read?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 08:28:04 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:23:59 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi
    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
    you are an idiot

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 11:27:26 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:23:59 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.

    You *still* havent quoted Einstein.
    Many of us here have been waiting for you to support your claim, but you fail to do so.
    It's obvious by now that you are a liar and a crank.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Oct 1 13:45:52 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.
    That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the
    relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>> continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    Those who refuse to look through the telescope are history. If you are such a child, you don't know how to make a request. Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his
    article is easily available.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 22:18:20 2023
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:

    I assume the claim is:

    According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
    in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
    in both their respective frames.


    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

    Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
    and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².

    But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²


    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync

    Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0

    in the same inertial frame:

    Don't be ridiculous!
    Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

    t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
    are different in K' and K.

    That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
    not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
    clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,


    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

    You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
    c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18


    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

    The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
    the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

    The LT:
    xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m

    tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
    tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s


    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m

    Nonsense.
    The coordinates of event N are:
    in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
    in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

    Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
    When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

    This shouldn't surprise you.
    When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
    to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
    always show the same. t'= t, remember?

    But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
    1E17 times too high! :-D

    HOWEVER;
    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

    So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

    Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
    N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
    simultaneous in K', show different values.

    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

    When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
    then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
    show the same.

    This:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 1 13:46:15 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:48:04 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 10:51:32 PM UTC-6, Richard Hertz wrote:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
    Note #1: This resolves to t = γ(t' + vx'/c²).

    Note #2: You can also derive x = γ(x' + vt')
    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows
    that those clocks are out of sync in the same inertial frame:

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m


    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as
    perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
    Exactly, as PERCEIVED by the observer who remains at x = 0. IOW, from the perspective of S, not S'. This just proves the relativity of simultaneity from the
    perspective of S.

    Now use Note #1 to prove that clocks stationary in S are out of sync from the
    perspective of S'. This proves the relativity of simultaneity from the perspective
    of S'.
    Yes, from the perspective of the "stationary" frame, the other frames' clocks are out of sync within their frame. How can this be in an IRF in real physics? It can't. That disproves SR. There is no relativity of simultaneity. In any case, it reduces, at
    best, to a subjective or perspectival phenomenon.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 13:46:28 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:57:53 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock. >>>>> > > What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
    outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi
    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
    Maybe you should reread p. 514? Or can`t you read?
    On p. 515: "he wrote: “Certainly the same
    result [for time dilation] could be found if the clock moved
    relative to an observer at rest in the upper c.s.; in this case
    there would have to be many clocks in the upper c.s. and
    only one in the lower.”" You only prove Einstein contradicted himself. That is just what we are saying. The method of synchronization contradicts the LT.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to rotchm on Sun Oct 1 13:47:12 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:27:29 AM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 11:23:59 AM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
    You *still* havent quoted Einstein.
    Many of us here have been waiting for you to support your claim, but you fail to do so.
    It's obvious by now that you are a liar and a crank.
    Why would I kick a mule for kicking me?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Oct 1 13:46:47 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I assume the claim is:

    According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
    in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
    in both their respective frames.

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
    No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

    Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
    and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².

    But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
    Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
    in the same inertial frame:
    Don't be ridiculous!
    Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

    t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
    are different in K' and K.

    That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
    not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
    clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
    You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
    c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
    The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
    the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

    The LT:
    xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m

    tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
    tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
    Nonsense.
    The coordinates of event N are:
    in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
    in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

    Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
    When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

    This shouldn't surprise you.
    When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
    to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
    always show the same. t'= t, remember?

    But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
    1E17 times too high! :-D

    HOWEVER;
    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

    So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
    Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
    N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
    simultaneous in K', show different values.

    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

    When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
    then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
    show the same.

    This:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Richard Hachel on Sun Oct 1 13:47:33 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:53:17 AM UTC-7, Richard Hachel wrote:
    Le 01/10/2023 à 04:38, Tom Roberts a écrit :
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    Einstein's time synchronization

    Einstein's synchronization

    Tom Roberts

    "On n'est pas sorti de l'auberge".

    Proverbe français.

    R.H.
    ""We didn't leave the hostel." French proverb."- Babylon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hertz@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Sun Oct 1 13:47:33 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:17:53 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I assume the claim is:

    According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
    in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
    in both their respective frames.

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
    No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

    Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
    and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².

    But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
    Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
    in the same inertial frame:
    Don't be ridiculous!
    Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

    t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
    are different in K' and K.

    That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
    not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
    clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
    You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
    c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
    The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
    the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

    The LT:
    xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m

    tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
    tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
    Nonsense.
    The coordinates of event N are:
    in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
    in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

    Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
    When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

    This shouldn't surprise you.
    When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
    to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
    always show the same. t'= t, remember?

    But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
    1E17 times too high! :-D

    HOWEVER;
    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

    So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
    Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
    N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
    simultaneous in K', show different values.

    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

    When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
    then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
    show the same.

    This:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    I quit reading after your stupid claim of a mistake of mine. Read the first post that I wrote in this thread:

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics.relativity/c/I9UaMnndraA/m/pwHNy-RDAQAJ

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Oct 1 13:48:35 2023
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
    There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
    The relativists are the cranks, and all of you are dumber than Einstein. "crank2
    n. 1 an eccentric person, esp. one who is obsessed by a particular subject or theory." I'm not obsessed with relativity. It is tangential to real science.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 13:50:19 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    Anyone interested in getting at the elementary basis may like Crother's earlier article specifically on this issue: Einstein's anomalous clock synchronization
    Article in Physics Essays · September 2017;
    And Hertz's detailing of it is clear.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 14:06:43 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    It is hard for anything to be more self-contradictory nonsense than to have different times at the same time in a single IRF, as relativity does by the concession of several relativists' comments above. Reductio ad absurdum. Relativity is nonsense.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Hachel@21:1/5 to All on Sun Oct 1 21:06:48 2023
    Le 01/10/2023 à 22:17, "Paul B. Andersen" a écrit :
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:

    I assume the claim is:

    According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
    in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
    in both their respective frames.

    Questions relating to the synchronization of watches are fundamental in relativity.

    This is the primum movens of the theory.

    It is the relativity of the notion of universal simultaneity
    (anisochrony),
    and the relativity of the relative beating of moving clocks (relative chronotropy) which is obviously at the basis of most phenomena.

    So it is very good (for me, it is remarkable and fundamental) to make pdfs
    on this.

    On the other hand, you did not respond to this good doctor Hachel who introduces himself
    as an outstanding theorist of relativistic kinematics.

    However, the question is of immense importance.

    How do you synchronize the thirteen clocks that we will place along the
    route of the Tau Ceti traveler?

    A clock every light years.

    I remind you that according to Paul B Andersen, the journey will last
    t=12,915 years.

    What Doctor Hachel confirms (he’s not bad Hachel)

    Just very picky and in perfect disagreement with certain geometric notions
    of space-time which he classifies in the doctrine of abstract ideas, such
    as the determination of instantaneous speeds in this nevertheless simple problem, as well as all the predicted proper times,
    and which are terribly false.

    We pose
    x=12 ly,
    a=1.052ly/y²~ 10m/s²

    How do you synchronize the thirteen clocks that we will place along the
    route of the Tau Ceti traveler?


    R.H.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 14:13:36 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers

    A reminder...

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

    “I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dono.@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 14:16:33 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
    There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
    The relativists are the cranks

    An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving against
    the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".

    That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Oct 1 16:34:13 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    A reminder...

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

    “I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."
    Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Oct 1 16:34:58 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
    There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
    The relativists are the cranks
    An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
    against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".

    That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....
    Ad populum dummy!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Oct 1 16:35:10 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
    There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
    The relativists are the cranks
    An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
    against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".

    That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....
    lemming!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Dono. on Sun Oct 1 16:36:09 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:16:35 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:48:37 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:38:33 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 8:14:50 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt
    There is nothing to "grapple" with. Both Engelhardt and Crotches are cranks. Smarter than you and Dick but still cranks.
    The relativists are the cranks
    An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
    against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".

    That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....
    "The many are ignorant, the few are wise." - Socrates

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 16:48:22 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.

    Nobody has denied that. What you have failed to realize is that an
    observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but
    they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity
    (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world,
    which relativity models. You seem to believe that since simultaneous
    events in K aren't simultaneous in K', relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 16:51:36 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    "According to Special Relativity, the ‘spacetime interval’ is invariant for all coordinate
    systems:...According to Special Relativity, the ‘spacetime interval’ is the same for all coordinate
    systems:" - "Special Theory of Relativity: Logical Inconsistencies" Stephen Crothers

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 1 16:54:50 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:46:49 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.
    Nobody has denied that. What you have failed to realize is that an
    observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but
    they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem to believe that since simultaneous
    events in K aren't simultaneous in K', relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.
    Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other! That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 17:05:51 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:45:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein?

    Well, yes, DuH! That is what to quote means!

    Englehardt gives that citation,...

    Irrelevant, since he may be making stuff up.
    So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc. That is what to quote means, DuH!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to rotchm on Sun Oct 1 17:43:30 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:05:53 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:45:54 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein?
    Well, yes, DuH! That is what to quote means!

    Englehardt gives that citation,...

    Irrelevant, since he may be making stuff up.
    So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc.
    That is what to quote means, DuH!
    Lazy mule!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 18:21:33 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:43:32 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    So you must provide Einstein's direct source, and quote, and page/passage etc.
    That is what to quote means, DuH!
    Lazy mule!

    You are the one that made the claim, so its up to you to prove it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Roberts@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 21:02:45 2023
    On 9/30/23 10:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
    is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
    (t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
    coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
    among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
    clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
    what is meant by "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts
    I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the
    same.

    ... when read simultaneously in their rest frame. Without that condition
    your statement makes no sense.

    The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method
    doesn't work with the Lt.

    There is nothing to "grapple" with -- such a claim is manifestly incorrect.

    As you seem to have trouble with basic logic, let me point out that my paragraph above outlines a proof that Englehardt's and Crothers's claims
    are incorrect, by showing that Einstein synchronization is compatible
    with the Lorentz transform. The proof is easily completed by anyone
    familiar with SR and basic algebra (which apparently excludes you and
    other cranks around here).

    Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]

    You are wrong, apparently because YOU CANNOT READ. Einstein did not say
    what you claim.

    Tom Roberts

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 19:06:23 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in
    K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence
    of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K', relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.

    Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
    That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!

    No need to argue ad hominem.

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in
    the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for
    the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.

    RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments
    confirming time dilation, here's an example:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true

    Here's another:

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

    You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world exists in spite of your denial.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 22:24:01 2023
    On 10/1/2023 4:45 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>> On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>>> That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>>> relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>>> continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change. >>>>>>
    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    Those who refuse to look through the telescope are history. If you are such a child, you don't know how to make a request. Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and
    his article is easily available.

    So you really can't supply the quote by Einstein.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 19:49:17 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:34:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    A reminder...

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

    “I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."

    Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.

    And yet you still have zero evidence in support of your wacky theories. ZERO! Relativity still rules until it is proven to be incorrect, and so far no one has been able to do that... and it won't be you who brings Einstein down.

    You need to find another hobby because this one is WAY over your head.

    You don't know what you don't know, and that's a fact!

    Be assured that you are not the only one here who suffers from such delusions.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Oct 1 20:30:50 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:02:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/30/23 10:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
    is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
    (t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
    coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
    among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
    clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
    what is meant by "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts
    I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same.

    ... when read simultaneously in their rest frame. Without that condition your statement makes no sense.

    The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt.

    There is nothing to "grapple" with -- such a claim is manifestly incorrect.

    As you seem to have trouble with basic logic, let me point out that my paragraph above outlines a proof that Englehardt's and Crothers's claims
    are incorrect, by showing that Einstein synchronization is compatible
    with the Lorentz transform. The proof is easily completed by anyone
    familiar with SR and basic algebra (which apparently excludes you and
    other cranks around here).

    Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]

    You are wrong, apparently because YOU CANNOT READ. Einstein did not say
    what you claim.

    Tom Roberts
    Since you admit the clocks in the moving reference frame read different times at one instant viewed from the other IRF, you admit the inconsistency showing relativity is absurd nonsense. Then your math does the same or you have contradicted yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 20:36:52 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    Whoever accepts relativity doesn't understand it. Everyone who understands it rejects it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Tom Roberts on Sun Oct 1 20:42:39 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:02:59 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:
    On 9/30/23 10:14 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 7:38:51 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
    wrote:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I have no idea what Crothers is trying to say, as your description
    is impenetrable (too many symbols are undefined).

    But I do know that given inertial frame S with coordinates
    (t,x,y,z), and a Lorentz transform to inertial frame S' with
    coordinates (t',x',y',z'), then Einstein's synchronization holds
    among clocks at rest anywhere in S that display t, and also among
    clocks at rest anywhere in S' that display t'. After all, that is
    what is meant by "inertial frame".

    So claims of "inconsistency" are bogus.

    Tom Roberts
    I understand the same thing, that all clocks in one IRF must read the same.

    ... when read simultaneously in their rest frame. Without that condition your statement makes no sense.

    The question is whether any relativists here can grapple with first Englehardt's and then Crothers's case that the synchronization method doesn't work with the Lt.

    There is nothing to "grapple" with -- such a claim is manifestly incorrect.

    As you seem to have trouble with basic logic, let me point out that my paragraph above outlines a proof that Englehardt's and Crothers's claims
    are incorrect, by showing that Einstein synchronization is compatible
    with the Lorentz transform. The proof is easily completed by anyone
    familiar with SR and basic algebra (which apparently excludes you and
    other cranks around here).

    Einstein himself tacitly admitted this [...]

    You are wrong, apparently because YOU CANNOT READ. Einstein did not say
    what you claim.

    Tom Roberts
    The fact that the clocks in the moving reference frame are not synchronized when viewed from the other reference frame proves the synchronization method contradicts the LT.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Sun Oct 1 20:31:19 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem
    to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K',
    relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.

    Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
    That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real
    physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!
    No need to argue ad hominem.

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in
    the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for
    the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.

    RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments confirming time dilation, here's an example:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true

    Here's another:

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

    You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
    exists in spite of your denial.
    chest pounding

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul Alsing@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Sun Oct 1 21:05:40 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:36:54 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Whoever accepts relativity doesn't understand it. Everyone who understands it rejects it.

    What a steaming pile of manure you spout!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Sylvia Else@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Oct 2 15:17:42 2023
    On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Your concern is fundamentally misconceived, because Einstein was not
    trying to prove[*] that the Lorentz transform properly describes the
    universe, but to show how one can derive a transform that plausibly
    could do so if one starts with certain assumptions.

    Sylvia

    [*] Things cannot be proven in physics, and in any case we know that the Lorentz transform omits the effect of gravity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Dono. on Mon Oct 2 01:19:31 2023
    On 10/1/2023 5:16 PM, Dono. wrote:

    An inpatient escapes from the lunatic asylum, steals a car and starts driving on a freeway against the traffic. He turns on the radio and an announcer comes on saying:"There is a crazy man who escaped from the local lunatic asylum and is driving
    against the normal flow of traffic". The lunatic mumbles to himself: "They are all crazy, they are all driving against the traffic".

    That crazy man is you, Dick Hertz, pat dolan, "Lou"....

    A mass escape!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul Alsing on Sun Oct 1 22:22:47 2023
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 04:49:19 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:34:15 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:13:39 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 2:06:45 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    A reminder...

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

    “I'm neither a mathematician nor a physicist. More accurately, I'm a gardener and home handyman who does science in his spare time."

    Paul, I have read more articles in Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic magazines than you have. Rational Wiki is a purveyor of the science-pseudoscience dichotomy used to avoid discussion with alternative views by mainstream Big Science boondogglers.

    And yet you still have zero evidence in support of your wacky theories. ZERO! Relativity still rules until it is proven to be incorrect,

    It was, and your only answer was spitting with Polish jokes.
    Not that it was unexpected from a brainwashed religious
    maniac.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 2 09:28:50 2023
    Den 01.10.2023 22:46, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I assume the claim is:

    According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
    in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
    in both their respective frames.

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
    No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

    Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
    and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².

    But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
    Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
    in the same inertial frame:
    Don't be ridiculous!
    Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

    t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
    are different in K' and K.

    That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
    not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
    clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
    You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
    c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
    The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
    the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

    The LT:
    xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m >>
    tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
    tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
    Nonsense.
    The coordinates of event N are:
    in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
    in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

    Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
    When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

    This shouldn't surprise you.
    When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
    to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
    always show the same. t'= t, remember?

    But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
    1E17 times too high! :-D

    HOWEVER;
    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

    So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
    Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
    N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
    simultaneous in K', show different values.

    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

    When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
    then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
    show the same.

    This:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.

    Concede? :-D

    The relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
    consequence of the postulates of SR.

    The Lorentz transform follows from said postulates.

    Which proves your claim wrong.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Oct 2 00:48:27 2023
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 09:28:21 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 22:46, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 1:17:53 PM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On 9/30/23 7:52 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    The crux of the argument is that Einstein's time synchronization
    method is inconsistent with the LT as given by Crothers:
    I assume the claim is:

    According to the Lorentz transform, the coordinate clocks
    in two inertial frames in relative motion can't be synchronous
    in both their respective frames.

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²
    No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

    Your error is that you have set x = γ (x' - vt')
    and then the denominator would be (1 + γ²v²/c²) = γ².

    But x = γ (x' + vt') and (1 - γ²v²/c²) ≠ γ²

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly shows that those clocks are out of sync
    Your conclusion is correct, though, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0
    in the same inertial frame:
    Don't be ridiculous!
    Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

    t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
    are different in K' and K.

    That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
    not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
    clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,

    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,
    You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
    c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18

    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²
    The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
    the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

    The LT:
    xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m

    tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
    tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s

    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m
    Nonsense.
    The coordinates of event N are:
    in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
    in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

    Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
    When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

    This shouldn't surprise you.
    When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
    to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
    always show the same. t'= t, remember?

    But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
    1E17 times too high! :-D

    HOWEVER;
    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m >>
    So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame, are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).
    Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
    N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
    simultaneous in K', show different values.

    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

    When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
    then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
    show the same.

    This:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'. " Here you concede the point.

    Concede? :-D

    The relativity of simultaneity is an inevitable
    consequence of the postulates of SR.

    Your bunch of idiots can't reach agreement
    what is and what is not a postulate of SR,
    however. And, anyway, you're logically
    inept; that makes your claims worthless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Gary Harnagel@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Oct 2 04:13:25 2023
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:31:22 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can
    set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem
    to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K',
    relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.

    Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
    That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real
    physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!

    No need to argue ad hominem.

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for
    the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.

    RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments confirming time dilation, here's an example:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true

    Here's another:

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

    You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
    exists in spite of your denial.

    chest pounding

    So presenting actual experimental evidence is "chest pounding" :-)

    You do what you accuse others of. That's called hypocrisy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 2 13:23:58 2023
    Den 01.10.2023 22:47, skrev Richard Hertz:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:17:53 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    No, t' = f(t,x') gives:

    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 - γ²v²/c²)

    This should be;
    t' = (γt + γ²x′v/c²)/(1 + γ²v²/c²) = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²


    I quit reading after your stupid claim of a mistake of mine.


    Yes, I was wrong, you were right.

    Sorry for accusing you of doing an error
    you didn't do.

    This has no consequences for the rest of my post,
    so I will repeat it.

    Maybe you will read it this time?


    Den 01.10.2023 06:51, skrev Richard Hertz:

    x' = γ (x - vt)
    t' = γ (t - xv/c²)

    Replacing x by x' in t' gives

    t′ = (1/γ)t − x′v/c²

    For every value of x' (where clocks are placed), this equation clearly
    shows that those clocks are out of sync

    Your conclusion is correct, t'≠ t unless x'= x = 0

    in the same inertial frame:

    Don't be ridiculous!
    Let's call the frames K'(t'x') and K(t,x).

    t'≠ t means that the temporal coordinates of the event
    are different in K' and K.

    That doesn't mean that the coordinate clocks i K
    not are in sync with each other, and that the coordinate
    clocks i K' not are in sync with each other,


    Being t = 0, v = 1 m/s, c = 1 and x' being increased in 1 m steps,

    You can't mix natural and SI units, so with v = 1 m/s and x' = N m,
    c = 299792458 m/s, γ ≈ 1+5.56E-18


    t = 0, t'(x') = − x′v/c²

    The coordinates of event N in in K' = ( tₙ', N m)
    the coordinates of event n in K = (0 s,xₙ)

    The LT:
    xₙ = γ(N + v⋅tₙ)m ≈ (1+5.56E-18)⋅(N+v⋅0)m = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m

    tₙ' = γ(0 - vxₙ/c^2) = -γvxₙ/c^2
    tₙ' = -(1+5.56E-18)⋅1⋅(1+5.56E-18)⋅N⋅1.11E-17) s ≈ - N⋅1.11E-17 s


    t = 0, t'(0) = 0 -------> Clock C0 at origin x' = 0
    t = 0, t'(1) = -1 -------> Clock C1 at x' = 1 m
    t = 0, t'(2) = -2 -------> Clock C2 at x' = 2 m
    ....
    t = 0, t'(N) = -N -------> Clock CN at x' = N m

    Nonsense.
    The coordinates of event N are:
    in K : tₙ = 0 s, xₙ = (1+5.56E-18)⋅N m
    in K': tₙ'≈ -N⋅1.11E-17 s, xₙ'≈ N m

    Approximated to 15 significant digits we get:
    When tₙ = 0.00000000000000, tₙ'= 0.00000000000000

    This shouldn't surprise you.
    When v = 1m/s the result will to a very good approximation be equal
    to the results of Galilean relativity, which is that all clocks
    always show the same. t'= t, remember?

    But you didn't think of that, and got a result which was
    1E17 times too high! 😂

    HOWEVER;
    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

    So why is your statement below absolute ridiculous?

    All the N+1 clocks, equally spaced in the moving frame,
    are OUT OF SYNC (as perceived by the relativist at x = 0 when t = 0).

    Because the N+1 different t' are the temporal coordinates of
    N+1 different events. It is NOT N+1 coordinate clocks which,
    simultaneous in K', show different values.

    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'.

    When the coordinate clock at x' = N m show t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s,
    then, simultaneously in K', all the other coordinate clocks
    show the same.

    This:
    https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

    PROVES that according to the Lorentz transform, the clocks
    in both K' and K can be synchronous in their respective frames.

    If you claim otherwise, you will have to show that my math is wrong
    in the reference above.


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 2 13:31:28 2023
    Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.

    I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
    which you confirmed.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Gary Harnagel on Mon Oct 2 04:28:30 2023
    On Monday, 2 October 2023 at 13:13:28 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 9:31:22 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 5:54:53 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 4:48:24 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:

    What you have failed to realize is that an observer stationary in K' can
    set up simultaneous events in K', but they will NOT be simultaneous in
    K. This IS relativity of simultaneity (RoS), a fundamental consequence
    of relativity -- and of the real world, which relativity models. You seem
    to believe that since simultaneous events in K aren't simultaneous in K',
    relativity is wrong. NO! It means relativity correctly models the real world.

    Gary, it is easy to understand that if it goes for the one it does for the other!
    That is relativity of simultaneity and that is what is not true, and not real
    physics or the real world. Your head is in the clouds silly man!

    No need to argue ad hominem.

    "Attack me again with your sticks and your stones,
    And, yes, you just may end up breaking my bones.
    But name-calling earns you the hapless disgrace
    Of failing to logically argue your case." -- David Morin

    Your assertion that RoS is wrong is refuted by experimental evidence in the GPS atomic clocks being set to run slow locally to compensate for the RoS between the earth's surface and conditions at the satellite.

    RoS happens because of time dilation and there are many experiments confirming time dilation, here's an example:

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/einsteins-time-dilation-prediction-verified/?mobileFormat=true

    Here's another:

    https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-pair-aluminum-atomic-clocks-reveal-einsteins-relativity-personal-scale

    You can bury your head in the sand like you've been doing, but the real world
    exists in spite of your denial.

    chest pounding
    So presenting actual experimental evidence is "chest pounding" :-)

    Gary, poor halfbrain, we know your "real" world.
    You had to delete GPS clocks from it, as they
    didn't want to fit your gedanken absurd.

    You can bury your head in the sand like you've been
    doing, but the real world exists in spite of your
    denials; the real observers apply real clocks
    to count real time in real seconds, and NOTHING
    of that matches the delusions of yours and your
    idiot gurus.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Adolf =?utf-8?Q?G=C3=B6bel?=@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Mon Oct 2 16:10:08 2023
    On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 13:46:28 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 8:57:53 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sun, 1 Oct 2023 08:23:57 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 6:41:17 AM UTC-7, Adolf Göbel wrote:
    On Sat, 30 Sep 2023 13:56:58 -0700 (PDT), Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: >>>>
    On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:30:36 PM UTC-7, Dono. wrote: >>>>>> On Saturday, September 30, 2023 at 1:01:19 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 9:46:03 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>> > On 30-Sept-23 4:21 am, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock. >>>>>>> > > What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other. >>>>>>> > That is not what the Lorentz transform says. If in some frame, the >>>>>>> > relatively moving clocks show a particular difference in times, they >>>>>>> > continue to show that same difference in that frame. It does not change.

    Sylvia.
    Thank you. Then why did Einstein consider it necessary to forbid more than one clock in the moving frame?
    Dumbotron

    There are two clocks in the moving frame, oe at each end of the moving rod.
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.
    In the link you gave (W.W. Engelhardt, p.514) I read:


    “For the sake of simplicity” Einstein has drawn only a
    single clock on the upper rod, but in agreement with his principles
    outlined in Sec. II, we are entitled adding to all points
    in S0 a pertaining clock and assuming that these additional
    clocks have been synchronized like those in S. The first
    graphics may then be complemented by two more clocks
    pointing to t0 ¼0 as they are synchronized with the one at
    x0 ¼0 (Fig. 2).


    greetings
    Adi
    No, according to the Einstein quote given above he said one can not have multiple clocks in the moving frame.
    Maybe you should reread p. 514? Or can`t you read?
    On p. 515: "he wrote: “Certainly the same
    result [for time dilation] could be found if the clock moved
    relative to an observer at rest in the upper c.s.; in this case
    there would have to be many clocks in the upper c.s. and
    only one in the lower.”" You only prove Einstein contradicted himself. That is just what we are saying. The method of synchronization contradicts the LT.

    This is the same as on p. 514, only vice versa. You don`t understand
    neither Engelhardt nor Einstein

    greetings
    Adi

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Mon Oct 2 20:19:08 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.

    I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
    which you confirmed.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the
    same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Oct 3 00:51:47 2023
    On 10/2/2023 11:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.

    I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
    which you confirmed.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the
    same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

    I see you *still* are unable to provide the Einstein quote.

    This behavior by Laurence makes me think there's some secret
    crackpot-only anti-relativity discussion board somewhere that Laurence
    follows. Someone on the board bragged that Englehardt quotes Einstein
    stating whatever, but without providing the quote itself. Laurence
    treats that as Gospel and repeats it here as factual, but he isn't smart
    enough to find the Einstein quote (assuming it actually exists) himself.
    So Laurence just hems and haws hoping people will just believe him or he somehow gets the quote.

    Meanwhile, on the secret discussion board, there's likely a post by
    Laurence reading "PLEASE can someone provide me with the Einstein quote
    that Englehardt refers to!!!"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Mon Oct 2 22:15:49 2023
    On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 06:51:52 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 10/2/2023 11:19 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 4:30:59 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 01.10.2023 22:45, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    On Sunday, October 1, 2023 at 12:29:15 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 30.09.2023 22:56, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    Not according to Einstein. I gave the quote of Einstein given by Englehardt above.

    :-D

    So you can't give the quote by Einstein?


    Do you mean you want me to give the quote directly from a source primarily about Einstein? Englehardt gives that citation, and his article is easily available.

    I asked if you were unable to give the quote by Einstein,
    which you confirmed.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/
    You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'." Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the
    same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?
    I see you *still* are unable to provide the Einstein quote.

    This behavior by Laurence makes me think there's some secret

    And do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.


    crackpot-only anti-relativity discussion board somewhere that Laurence follows. Someone on the board bragged that Englehardt quotes Einstein stating whatever, but without providing the quote itself. Laurence
    treats that as Gospel and repeats it here as factual, but he isn't smart enough to find the Einstein quote (assuming it actually exists) himself.
    So Laurence just hems and haws hoping people will just believe him or he somehow gets the quote.

    Meanwhile, on the secret discussion board, there's likely a post by
    Laurence reading "PLEASE can someone provide me with the Einstein quote
    that Englehardt refers to!!!"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Volney@21:1/5 to Maciej Wozniak on Tue Oct 3 02:53:43 2023
    On 10/3/2023 1:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    []

    Are you a member of the secret crackpot anti-relativity discussion
    board? Is Laurence begging for the Einstein quote because he's too dumb
    to find it himself?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Oct 3 09:43:07 2023
    Den 03.10.2023 05:19, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
    You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'."

    Yes. The context was:

    According to SR, (and the Lorentz transform):

    If the coordinates in K of event N are t = 0 s, x = γN m
    then the coordinates in K' of event N are t'=γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s, x' = N m

    Rational scientists can understand that the clocks in the moving frame must be viewed from the stationary frame as synchronized. You concede they are not. At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same
    instant as viewed from the other frame. You keep dodging this point. I have already given the quote above. Why make childish demands?

    If we assume that there are clocks showing coordinate time
    at x = γN m in K, and at x' = N m, then:

    An observer present at event N will see the clock in
    K showing 0 s, and the clock in K' showing γ²⋅N⋅v/c² s.

    Which means that according to SR:
    The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    but they are NOT simultaneous in K'

    SR is thoroughly tested in innumerable experiments
    and never falsified.

    All rational scientists know that simultaneity is relative.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Volney on Tue Oct 3 01:53:20 2023
    On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 08:53:47 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
    On 10/3/2023 1:15 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

    []

    Are you a member of the secret crackpot anti-relativity discussion
    board?

    No. But do you still believe that 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy
    is some "Newton mode"? You're such an agnorant idiot,
    stupid Mike, even considering the standards of your
    moronic religion.

    Is Laurence begging for the Einstein quote because he's too dumb
    to find it himself?

    Neither I know, nor I care.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Tue Oct 3 02:08:51 2023
    On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 09:42:38 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

    If we assume that there are clocks showing coordinate time
    at x = γN m in K, and at x' = N m, then:

    If (false) then (anything). You assume clocks
    are showing your local time absurd in your SI
    seconds idiocy. Seeing they're not doesn't
    affect your assumptions, as expected from
    reality denying morons.



    SR is thoroughly tested in innumerable experiments
    and never falsified.

    Anyone can check GPS, the real clocks keep
    measuring t'=t, and your lie that that's what your
    Shit has predicted is an incredibly impudent
    absurd.

    All rational scientists know that simultaneity is relative.

    And all "rational" scientists are brainwashed,
    reality denying idiots. Even assuming there
    exists time independent on coordinate time and
    matching your delusions - simultaneity is
    still a matter of the coordinate time.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From rotchm@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Oct 3 05:22:52 2023
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:19:11 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,

    ... At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed ...

    Why to you say that it is absurd?
    Is it because of your own prejudice?
    Because of your own miscomprehension?
    Because you are a reality denier?
    ...

    Is it absurd that you see the sun & moon to be the same size in the sky?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Maciej Wozniak@21:1/5 to rotchm on Tue Oct 3 05:42:11 2023
    On Tuesday, 3 October 2023 at 14:22:55 UTC+2, rotchm wrote:
    On Monday, October 2, 2023 at 11:19:11 PM UTC-4, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

    You say, "The N+1 events are simultaneous in K,
    ... At best, you are left with the absurdity of clocks in the same frame out of sync at the same instant as viewed ...

    Why to you say that it is absurd?
    Is it because of your own prejudice?
    Because of your own miscomprehension?
    Because you are a reality denier?

    If you heard of a screwdriver made of
    plasticine - you would know why it's an absurd,
    wouldn't you? Or maybe you're too stupid
    even for that; I wouldn't be very surprised.

    So, answering your question - because keeping
    sync it's the most important functionality of
    clocks. That's how things are in the world
    we inhabit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mitchrae3323@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Tue Oct 3 17:22:17 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.

    There is no absolute rest. All frames are moving.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Laurence Clark Crossen@21:1/5 to Laurence Clark Crossen on Wed Oct 11 13:26:22 2023
    On Friday, September 29, 2023 at 11:21:32 AM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
    He said the moving frame of reference can have only one clock.
    What was he hiding?
    If more than one clock is used in the moving frame, they go out of synchronization with each other due to the LT.
    That is, the clocks within one IRF go out of sync with each other.

    Einstein’s third postulate
    W. Engelhardt

    On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity
    Stephen John Crothers

    Critical Comments on the Paper “On the Logical
    Inconsistency of the Special Theory of
    Relativity”
    Vladimir A. Leus

    Reply to “Critical Comments on the Paper ‘On
    the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory
    of Relativity’”
    Stephen J. Crothers
    My conclusion is that Englehardt's and Crother's criticism is not a steel man of relativity.
    Radwan Kassir basically agrees with me.
    I had this conversation with him on Linked In:
    Laurence Crossen:

    What do you think of the "third postulate" as described by Englehardt and Crothers?

    Radwan M. Kassir: profile Author Engineer MSME, CEng, PMP, LEED AP

    The related argument leading to the conclusion not in favor of Einstein, drawn from Einstein's clocks synchronization versus Lorentz transformation prediction, is inaccurate.

    Laurence Crossen

    Englehardt says the clocks in the moving system, as viewed from the stationary system, would be out of sync with each other at one instant. Then how is that math incorrect?

    The distance to different clocks in the moving frame would give different times for each clock at the same instant.


    Radwan M. Kassir

    The issue stems from applying the Lorentz transformation (LT) on the S clocks coordinates (time and space) with x coordinate different from zero at time t=0, yielding t'=-vx'/c^2, while neglecting the transformation of the respective space coordinate x,
    yielding x'=gamma.x in S'. Whereas, the setup is made with x'=x. In fact, the LT applied on the coordinates of a non-origin clock in S, with x space coordinate, results in S' coordinates (t' and x') other than those of the respective clock in S' with x'=
    x, adjacent to the former one in S at t=0. A clock in S at x'=gamma.x will show t'=-vx'/c^2 relative to the local time (t'=0) of the clock in S' at x'=x. A simple calculation can show the local time at x'=gamma.x would be t'=0.

    Laurence Crossen

    Yes, the two frames have the same relative motion for all clocks. The mistake arises from measuring diagonally instead of using the perpendicular clock. I agree that they are mistaken for this simple reason.


    Radwan M. Kassir

    Exactly.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)